Is it possible to completely dominate good opposition?

Or when a fighter, not matter how good, is facing a high level of quality, will he always be in good, competitive fights?

I was thinking about this in regards to Mayweather, one of the best technicians of the modern era. Even though he's obviously proved to be better than all the guys he's fought to maintain his unbeaten record but if you think about his fights, Hatton won rounds off him, Ortiz hit him with some good shots and was doing alright, Cotto had success, Mosley had him all over the place, De La Hoya won some rounds - his only 'easy' fights in recentyears were against Marquez and way back against Baldomir. I'm not criticizing Mayweather here, by the way, I'm praising his opposition. You can't be faultless against good opponents, regardless of ability.

Think about Pacquiao. Another very skilled fighter but his only easy wins recently were against Clottey, Hatton and Mosley. Margarito hurt him badly to the body, Cotto landed plenty of shots, Bradley was tough, Marquez was very tough and so on.

Consider other fighters like Donaire, Martinez, Marquez, Hopkins, Ward, Froch and so on - all top level fighters and yet none are able to completely dominate their opposition because the quality of opposition is very high.

Personally, I don't think a guy who can go for 5 years without losing a round has proved much. His opposition are too poor for that to be an impressive record because, just like Mayweather, no matter how good a fighter is, you can't always dominate good opponents. They will all pose a threat in one way or another and cause problems. The only guys you see who dominate every single minute of every fight for years are able to do so because their opposition is garbage.

 

Cheers :good

I made this thread because it seems to be a common occurrence when a fighter is dominating to suggest that the dominant fighter is great solely because he's much better than their opposition. However, it seems incredibly rare for this to happen and in most cases where you have a dominant fighter, it's because the quality of opposition is really average. How special must a fighter be to literally win every single minute of a fight, year in year out? They'd have to be the greatest of all-time because that's not something Ali did, not something Robinson did, it's not something Duran did and so on. The great fighters of the modern era, Pacquiao, Mayweather, Lewis, Barrera, Hopkins and so on, were dominant in the sense that they won the majority of their fights but they didn't win every single minute of each round against all their opponents.

A great fighter dominates in a division where he constantly faces tests, not when he dominates guys who can't lay a glove on him. When a boxer can win each fight so easily, it says less about him and more about the quality of opposition he's facing because good opponents will always have success, no matter who they're fighting.

 

It's funny because I started writing about Jones in my last response, which I edited out because I went on a bit of a tangent It's definitely a good point though and maybe he is the exception, though, again, how good was the quality of opposition he faced? He lost rounds against Griffin but showed clear dominance in the rematch. By the time he was losing rounds against Tarver late on in his career, he was long past his best so maybe it's a case that Jones dominated a weak period too?